Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58315 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 19, 

2012. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the Proposed Rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

This action may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 3, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(282)(i)(C) and 

(411)(i)(C) and (D) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(282) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) Monterey Bay Unified Air 

Pollution Control District 

(1) Rule 205, ‘‘Provision of Sampling 

and Testing Facilities,’’ revised on 

March 21, 2001. 

* * * * * 

(411) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) San Diego County Air Pollution 

Control District 

(1) Rule 67.4, ‘‘Metal Container, Metal 

Closure and Metal Coil Coating 

Operations,’’ adopted and effective on 

November 9, 2011. 

(2) Rule 67.16, ‘‘Graphic Arts 

Operations,’’ adopted on November 9, 

2011 and effective on May 9, 2012. 

(D) Antelope Valley Air Quality 

Management District 

(1) Rule 1168, ‘‘Adhesive and Sealant 

Applications,’’ amended on September 

20, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21221 Filed 9–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2010–0066; SW FRL– 

9730–5] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting a petition 

submitted by ExxonMobil Refining and 

Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Baytown Refinery to exclude from 

hazardous waste control (or delist) a 

certain solid waste. This final rule 

responds to the petition submitted by 

ExxonMobil to have the F039 underflow 

water generated at the North Landfarm 

(NLF) in Baytown, Texas excluded, or 

delisted, from the definition of a 

hazardous waste. 

After careful analysis and evaluation 

of comments submitted by the public, 

the EPA has concluded that the 

petitioned wastes are not hazardous 

waste when disposed of in Subtitle D 

landfills. This exclusion applies to 

7,427 cubic yards per year of the F039 

underflow water. Accordingly, this final 

rule excludes the petitioned waste from 

the requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills 

but imposes testing conditions to ensure 

that the future-generated wastes remain 

qualified for delisting. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 20, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this 

final rule is located at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202, and is available for 

viewing in the EPA Freedom of 

Information Act review room on the 7th 

floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. Call (214) 665–6444 

for appointments. The reference number 

for this docket is EPA–R06–RCRA– 

2012–0138. The public may copy 

material from any regulatory docket at 

no cost for the first 100 pages and at a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58316 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

cost of $0.15 per page for additional 

copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, contact Melissa 

Smith, at (214) 665–7357. For technical 

information concerning this notice, 

contact Wendy Jacques, U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665– 

7395, or jacques.wendy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

D. How will ExxonMobil manage the waste 

if it is delisted? 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is a ‘‘delisting’’? 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data 

A. What waste did ExxonMobil petition 

EPA to delist? 

B. How much waste did ExxonMobil 

propose to delist? 

C. How did ExxonMobil sample and 

analyze the waste data in this petition? 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

B. Comments and Responses 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

After evaluating the petition, EPA 

proposed on June 19, 2012, to exclude 

the underflow water from the lists of 

hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.31 

and 261.32 (see 73 FR 54760). EPA is 

finalizing the decision to grant 

ExxonMobil’s delisting petition to have 

the underflow water excluded, or 

delisted from the definition of 

hazardous waste subject to certain 

continued verification and monitoring 

conditions. 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

ExxonMobil’s petition requests a 

delisting for the underflow water listed 

as F039. ExxonMobil does not believe 

that the petitioned waste meet the 

criteria for which EPA listed them. 

ExxonMobil also believes no additional 

constituents or factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. EPA’s review of 

this petition included consideration of 

the original listing criteria, and the 

additional factors required by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 

section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4). In 

making the initial delisting 

determination, EPA evaluated the 

petitioned waste against the listing 

criteria and factors cited in 

§§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this 

review, EPA agrees with the petitioner 

that the waste is non-hazardous with 

respect to the original listing criteria. If 

EPA had found, based on this review, 

that the waste remained hazardous 

based on the factors for which the waste 

was originally listed, EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition. EPA 

evaluated the waste with respect to 

other factors or criteria to assess 

whether there is a reasonable basis to 

believe that such additional factors 

could cause the waste to be hazardous. 

EPA considered whether the waste is 

acutely toxic, the concentration of the 

constituents in the waste, their tendency 

to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their 

persistence in the environment once 

released from the waste, plausible and 

specific types of management of the 

petitioned waste, the quantities of waste 

generated, and waste variability. EPA 

believes that the petitioned wastes do 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s 

decision to delist wastes from the 

facility is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the waste and 

analytical data from the ExxonMobil, 

Beaumont, Texas facility. 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

This exclusion applies to the waste 

described in the petition only if the 

requirements described in Table 1 and 

2 of part 261, Appendix IX and the 

conditions contained herein are 

satisfied. 

D. How will ExxonMobil manage the 

waste if it is delisted? 

ExxonMobil will either: (1) Continue 

to accumulate the underflow water in a 

holding tank, sample the water once 

each calendar year, analyze the annual 

sample for target constituents and 

submit the results to the EPA for review; 

or (2) route the underflow to the 

underflow collection system and then to 

the series of ditches to the underground 

Baytown Refinery East sewer. In the 

latter case, samples of the underflow 

water would be collected from the 

underflow sump once each calendar 

year, analyzed for target constituents 

and the results submitted to the EPA for 

review. Ultimately, the underflow will 

enter the waste water treatment system 

where it is commingled with other 

wastewaters from the Baytown 

Chemical Plant and Baytown Olefins 

Plant. 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

This rule is effective September 20, 

2012. The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended Section 

3010 of RCRA allows rules to become 

effective in less than six months when 

the regulated community does not need 

the six-month period to come into 

compliance. That is the case here 

because this rule reduces, rather than 

increases, the existing requirements for 

persons generating hazardous wastes. 

These reasons also provide a basis for 

making this rule effective immediately, 

upon publication, under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

Because EPA is issuing this exclusion 

under the Federal RCRA delisting 

program, only states subject to Federal 

RCRA delisting provisions would be 

affected. This would exclude two 

categories of States: States having a dual 

system that includes Federal RCRA 

requirements and their own 

requirements, and States who have 

received our authorization to make their 

own delisting decisions. 

Here are the details: We allow states 

to impose their own non-RCRA 

regulatory requirements that are more 

stringent than EPA’s, under section 

3009 of RCRA. These more stringent 

requirements may include a provision 

that prohibits a Federally issued 

exclusion from taking effect in the State. 

Because a dual system (that is, both 

Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) 

programs) may regulate a petitioner’s 

waste, we urge petitioners to contact the 

State regulatory authority to establish 

the status of their wastes under the State 

law. 

EPA has also authorized some States 

(for example, Louisiana, Georgia, 

Illinois) to administer a delisting 

program in place of the Federal 

program, that is, to make State delisting 

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion 

does not apply in those authorized 

States. If ExxonMobil transports the 

petitioned waste to or manages the 

waste in any State with delisting 

authorization, ExxonMobil must obtain 

delisting authorization from that State 

before they can manage the waste as 

nonhazardous in the State. 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to EPA or another agency 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58317 

with jurisdiction to exclude from the list 

of hazardous wastes, wastes the 

generator does not consider hazardous 

under RCRA. 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, 

facilities may petition the EPA to 

remove their wastes from hazardous 

waste control by excluding them from 

the lists of hazardous wastes contained 

in §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition 

the Administrator to modify or revoke 

any provision of Parts 260 through 266, 

268 and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. Section 260.22 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste on a ‘‘generator-specific’’ basis 

from the hazardous waste lists. 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

Petitioners must provide sufficient 

information to EPA to allow the EPA to 

determine that the waste to be excluded 

does not meet any of the criteria under 

which the waste was listed as a 

hazardous waste. In addition, the 

Administrator must determine where 

he/she has a reasonable basis to believe 

that factors (including additional 

constituents) other than those for which 

the waste was listed could cause the 

waste to be a hazardous waste, that such 

factors do not warrant retaining the 

waste as a hazardous waste. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data 

A. What waste did ExxonMobil petition 

EPA to delist? 

In August 2010, ExxonMobil 

petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists 

of hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32, underflow water 

(F039) generated from its facility located 

in Baytown, Texas. The waste falls 

under the classification of listed waste 

pursuant to §§ 261.31 and 261.32. 

B. How much waste did ExxonMobil 

propose to delist? 

Specifically, in its petition, 

ExxonMobil requested that EPA grant a 

standard exclusion for 7,427 cubic yards 

(1,500,000 gallons) per year of the 

underflow water. 

C. How did ExxonMobil sample and 

analyze the waste data in this petition? 

To support its petition, ExxonMobil 

submitted: 

(1) Historical information on waste 

generation and management practices; 

and 

(2) Analytical results from five 

samples for total concentrations of 

compounds of concern (COC)s. 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

The EPA received public comments 

on the June 2012, proposed rule from 

two citizens. The comments and 

responses are addressed below. 

B. What comments were submitted on 

the ExxonMobil delisting petition? 

Comment: The DRAS link identified 

in the Federal Register proposed rule 

(i.e., http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/ 

wptdiv/hazardous/delisting/drassoftware.html) appears to be broken. 

Response: The correct link is http:// 

www.epa.gov/Region5/waste/ 

hazardous/delisting/dras-software.html. 

Comment: It appears that DRAS was 

run using the ‘‘landfill’’ waste 

management unit (WMU) input, but the 

Proposed Rule states that disposal in a 

surface impoundment is the most 

reasonable, worst-case disposal 

scenario. Do you know why the landfill 

WMU was used in DRAS rather than the 

surface impoundment input? 

Response: This was a mistake on the 

part of EPA. The delisting limits have 

been reevaluated in DRAS using the 

‘‘surface impoundment’’ WMU. The 

updated DRAS report is in the docket 

file and the new delisting limits are in 

Table 1 of part 261, Appendix IX of this 

rule. This error does not affect the 

decision to grant the petition. In all 

cases, the delisting concentration is 

lower than initially proposed. 

Comment: In the Proposed Rule on 

page 36450, Table 1, Constituent, 

Maximum Total Concentration (mg/L), 

among 40 chemicals, 30 species are ND 

(none detected). What EPA method was 

applied? Were these ND species filtered 

through soil and nature decayed in the 

soil? 

Response: As documented in the 

laboratory analytical reports included as 

Attachment 4 to the delisting petition, 

the following SW–846 Methods were 

utilized to analyze samples collected in 

support of the delisting process: 7470 

(Mercury), 6020 (Metals), 8270 

(Semivolatiles), 8260 (Volatiles), 9056 

(Fluoride), M4500CN E&G (Cyanide), 

SM4500P E (Phosphorus), and 1613B 

(Dioxins and Furans). The laboratory 

Quality Assurance Plan (Attachment 2 

of the delisting petition) indicates that 

the analytical methods cited above are 

capable of achieving the detection and 

reporting limits required to characterize 

the samples relative to EPA’s regulatory 

limits. A review of the laboratory 

analytical results confirms the required 

detection and reporting limits were 

achieved. Per the EPA-approved 

Sampling and Analysis Plan, the 

samples were collected from the 

Underflow Sump at the North Landfarm 

in the ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery. 

Water in the Underflow Sump originates 

as rain that falls onto the landfarm plots, 

as irrigation applied to the plots (in the 

form of fire water, wash rack water, or 

underflow water), or as liquid in 

waste(s) applied to the landfarm plots. 

These liquids percolate through 

approximately 10 feet of waste at the 

North Landfarm to a fine sand layer that 

underlies the North Landfarm but 

overlies a clay liner. Within said sand 

layer are a series of pipes (the 

Underflow Collection Lines) which 

collect the percolation liquids and 

convey them to the Underflow Sump. 

Therefore, the samples collected are 

representative of liquids that have been 

‘‘filtered through soil and nature 

decayed in the soil’’ and have had 

sufficient opportunity to contact 

constituents present therein. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it 

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. Similarly, because this rule 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58318 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

rule does not have tribal implications, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

infants and children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. The Congressional 

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report which includes a copy of the 

rule to each House of the Congress and 

to the Comptroller General of the United 

States. Section 804 exempts from 

section 801 the following types of rules 

(1) rules of particular applicability; (2) 

rules relating to agency management or 

personnel; and (3) rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice that 

do not substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties 5 

U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to 

submit a rule report regarding this 

action under section 801 because this is 

a rule of particular applicability. 

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f). 

Dated: September 10, 2012. 

Carl E. Edlund, 

Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, Region 6. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

6922, and 6938. 

■ 2. In Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix IX 

to part 261 add the following waste 

stream in alphabetical order by facility 

to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

ExxonMobil North 

Landfarm.

Baytown, TX North Landfarm underflow water (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F039 generated at a maximum rate of 

1,500,000 gallons (7,427 cubic yards) per calendar year after issuing notice that ExxonMobil will initiate 

closure of the North Landfarm. 

For the exclusion to be valid, ExxonMobil must implement a verification testing program for each of the 

waste streams that meets the following Paragraphs: 

(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph. 

North Landfarm underflow water. Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Arsenic—0.0779; Barium—20.6; Benzene—0.0437; Benzo(a)anthracene—0.0453; Benzo(b)fluoranthene—0.206; Benzo(k)fluoranthene— 

12200; Benzo(a)pyrene—0.0297; Cadmium—0.119; Carbon tetrachloride—0.0549; Chlorobenzene— 

0.951; Chloroform—0.0379; Chromium—5; Chrysene—4.53; Cobalt—0.738; Copper—51.4; o-Cresol— 

200; m-Cresol—200; p-Cresol—200; 1,2-Dichloroethane—0.0463; 1,1-Dichloroethylene—0.0612; 2,4-Dinitrotoluene—0.00795; Fluoride—25.2; Hexachlorobenzene—0.0285; Hexachloroethane—0.287; Lead— 

4.95; Manganese—12.2; Mercury—0.0291; Methyl ethyl ketone—197; Molybdenum—3.09; 

Nitrobenzene—0.164; Pentachlorophenol—0.0109; Pyridine—0.328; Selenium—1.04; Silver—3.38; TotalTCDD—.00000239; Tetrachloroethylene—0.0106; Trichloroethylene—0.0439; 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol— 

0.184; Vinyl Chloride—0.00386; Zinc—168. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous cannot begin until compliance with the limits set in paragraph (1) 

for the North Landfarm underflow water has occurred for two consecutive sampling events. 

(B) If constituent levels in any annual sample and retest sample taken by ExxonMobil exceed any of the 

delisting levels set in paragraph (1) for the North Landfarm underflow water, ExxonMobil must do the following: 

(i) Notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (6) and 

(ii) Manage and dispose the North Landfarm underflow water as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle 

C of RCRA. 

(3) Testing Requirements: 

Upon notification that it will initiate closure of the North Landfarm, ExxonMobil must perform analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the North Landfarm underflow water as follows: 

(A) Initial Verification Testing: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58319 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(i) Collect one representative sample of the North Landfarm underflow water for analysis of all constituents 

listed in paragraph (1) within the first 30 days after notifying the TCEQ of the intention to initiate closure 

activities for the North Landfarm. Sampling must be performed in accordance with the sampling plan approved by EPA in support of the exclusion. 

(ii) If the data from the initial verification testing program demonstrate that the North Landfarm underflow 

water meets the Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentrations for the indicator parameters included in 

paragraph (1), collect two representative samples of the North Landfarm underflow water twice during the 

first six months of waste generation. Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any 

representative sample taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) indicates that the 

North Landfarm underflow water must continue to be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with 

the applicable hazardous waste requirements until such time that two consecutive representative samples 

indicate compliance with delisting levels listed in paragraph (1). 

(iii) Within sixty (60) days after taking its last representative sample, ExxonMobil will report its analytical test 

data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the North Landfarm underflow water do 

not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for six consecutive months, ExxonMobil 

can manage and dispose the non-hazardous North Landfarm underflow water according to all applicable 

solid waste regulations. 

(B) Annual Testing: 

(i) If ExxonMobil completes the testing specified in paragraph (3) above and no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1), ExxonMobil must begin annual testing as follows: ExxonMobil must test a representative grab sample of the North Landfarm underflow water 

for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year. If any measured constituent 

concentration exceeds the delisting levels set forth in paragraph (1), ExxonMobil must collect an additional representative sample within 10 days of being made aware of the exceedence and test it expeditiously for the constituent(s) which exceeded delisting levels in the original annual sample. 

(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative grab sample according to appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 

methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, 

the SW–846 methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 

0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B,1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 

9060A, 9070A (uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods must meet Performance 

Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the ExxonMobil North Landfarm underflow water are representative for all constituents listed in 

paragraph (1). 

(iii) The samples for the annual testing taken for the second and subsequent annual testing events shall be 

taken within the same calendar month as the first annual sample taken. 

(iv) The annual testing report should include the total amount of delisted waste in cubic yards disposed during the calendar year. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If ExxonMobil significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the waste that may or could affect the composition or type of 

waste generated (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the 

treatment process), it must notify EPA in writing and it may no longer handle the waste generated from 

the new process as non-hazardous until the waste meet the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) and it 

has received written approval to do so from EPA. 

ExxonMobil must submit a modification to the petition complete with full sampling and analysis for circumstances where the waste volume changes and/or additional waste codes are added to the waste 

stream. 

(5) Data Submittals: 

ExxonMobil must submit the information described below. If ExxonMobil fails to submit the required data 

within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph (6). ExxonMobil 

must: 

(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Chief, Corrective Action and Waste Minimization 

Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 

1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, Texas 75202, within the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on 

CD–ROM or comparable electronic media. 

(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years. 

(C) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State of Texas requests them for inspection. 

(D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to the truth and 

accuracy of the data submitted: 

‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements or 

representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but may not be 

limited to, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 42 U.S.C. § 6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete. 

As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify its (their) truth 

and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification that this information is true, accurate and complete. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58320 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, 

and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will 

be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable for 

any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the 

company’s reliance on the void exclusion.’’ 

(6) Reopener 

(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste ExxonMobil possesses or is otherwise made aware of 

any environmental data (including but not limited to underflow water data or ground water monitoring 

data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the 

delisting verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director in 

granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 

days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(B) If either the annual testing (and retest, if applicable) of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, ExxonMobil must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days 

of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(C) If ExxonMobil fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any other 

information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to 

whether the reported information requires EPA action to protect human health and/or the environment. 

Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment. 

(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information requires action by EPA, the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect 

human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a 

statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from receipt of the Division Director’s notice to 

present such information. 

(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (6)(D) or (if no information is 

presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or 

(6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing EPA actions that are necessary to protect human health and/or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise. 

(7) Notification Requirements: 

ExxonMobil must do the following before transporting the delisted waste. Failure to provide this notification 

will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision. 

(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state Regulatory Agency to which or through which it will 

transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities. 

(B) For onsite disposal a notice should be submitted to the State to notify the State that disposal of the 

delisted materials has begun. 

(C) Update one-time written notification, if it ships the delisted waste into a different disposal facility. 

(D) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting exclusion and a possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

TABLE 2—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

ExxonMobil North 

Landfarm.

Baytown, TX North Landfarm underflow water (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F039 generated at a maximum rate of 

1,500,000 gallons (7,427 cubic yards) per calendar year after notification that ExxonMobil will initiate closure of the North Landfarm. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–23091 Filed 9–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58321 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0008; FRL–9729–9] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the New Hanover County Airport 

Burn Pit Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 4 announces the 

deletion of the New Hanover County 

Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site (Site) 

located in Wilmington, North Carolina, 

from the National Priorities List (NPL). 

The NPL, promulgated pursuant to 

Section 105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the 

State of North Carolina, through the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources 

(DENR), have determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This action is effective 

September 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

1989–0008. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in the hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the site information repositories. 

Locations, contacts, phone numbers 

and viewing hours are: 

Regional Site Information Repository: 

U.S. EPA Record Center, Attn: Ms. 

Debbie Jourdan, Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Hours 

of Operation 8 a.m.–4 p.m. (by 

appointment only) Monday through 

Friday. 

Local Site Information Repository: New 

Hanover County Public Library 28401, 

201 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, 

North Carolina 28401. 

Hours of operation: 9 a.m.–8 p.m., 

Monday and Tuesday, 9 a.m.–6 p.m., 

Wednesday and Thursday, 9 a.m.–5 

p.m. Friday and Saturday, closed on 

Sunday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Beverly Hudson-Stepter, Remedial 

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 

Contact No: (404) 562–8816. Electronic 

mail at: stepter.beverly@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to 

be deleted from the NPL is: New 

Hanover County Airport Burn Pit 

Superfund Site located in Wilmington, 

North Carolina. A Notice of Intent To 

Delete was published in the Federal 

Register on June 22, 2012. 

The closing date for comments on the 

Notice of Intent to Delete was July 22, 

2012. No public comments were 

received during the comment period. 

Therefore, a responsiveness summary 

was not prepared and placed in the 

docket, EPA–R04–SFUND–2012–0091, 

on www.regulations.gov, or in the 

repositories listed above. 

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 

sites that appear to present a significant 

risk to public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Deletion from the NPL 

does not preclude further remedial 

action. Whenever there is a significant 

release from a site deleted from the NPL, 

the deleted site may be restored to the 

NPL without application of the hazard 

ranking system. Deletion of a site from 

the NPL does not affect responsible 

party liability in the unlikely event that 

future conditions warrant further 

actions. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection; Air 

pollution control; Chemicals; Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: August 27, 2012. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

For reasons set out in the preamble, 

40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘New Hanover 

County Airport Burn Pit Site,’’ 

‘‘Wilmington, North Carolina.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2012–23153 Filed 9–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 110816505–2184–03] 

RIN 0648–XC201 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Multispecies 

Fisheries Management Plan; Northern 

Red Hake Quota Harvested 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; possession 

limit reduction. 

SUMMARY: The northern red hake 

possession limit is reduced to the 

incidental possession limit of 400 lb 

(181.44 kg) for the remainder of the 

2012 fishing year. 

DATES: Effective at 0001 hr local time, 

September 20, 2012, through 2400 hr 

local time April 30, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Berthiaume, (978) 281–9177, or 

Jason.Berthiaume@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

regulations at 50 CFR 648.86(d)(4) 

require that, if the NMFS Northeast 

Region Administrator (Regional 

Administrator) projects that 90 percent 

of the total allowable landings (TAL) 

has been landed for a small-mesh 

multispecies stock, the Regional 

Administrator shall reduce the 

possession limit for that stock to the 

incidental possession limit of 400 lb 

(181.44 kg) for the remainder of the 

fishing year. 

The 2012 fishing year northern red 

hake TAL is 199,077 lb (90,300 kg) (77 

FR 19138; March 30, 2012) and 90 

percent of the TAL is 179,169 lb (81,270 

kg). Based on dealer, vessel trip report, 

and other available information, NMFS 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES